More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that
More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
And still, to this day, the best scientific evidence suggests that travel bans are mostly useless.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that it's a cheap, safe, proven combo that's been used for a long time.
It is absolutely not proven. Every study suggesting that it is effective has been thoroughly debunked. And every study suggesting it is safe has been at such a low dose that it has no statistically significant effect.
Twitter, Facebook, and the media was immediately censoring and attacking anyone who claimed that this came from the Wuhan lab instead of the claimed "wet market". Any evidence put forth was deleted and the author's smeared.
What "evidence"? You mean a bunch of conspiracy theory drivel spewing from people with a long history of spewing conspiracy theory drivel? If there were any evidence that were even *slightly* c
I've been through dozens and dozens of case where it's claimed that Trump "got the facts wrong". I was surprised because I struggled to find a case where that was definitively so. TDS appears to be one of many perceptual disorders impacting Democrat supporters where their brains alters how they perceive reality to fit their expectations or to conform to their desires.
This effect is usually subtle. Language is very imperfect and its very easy for the brain to automatically supply the interpretation the pe
I've been through dozens and dozens of case where it's claimed that Trump "got the facts wrong". I was surprised because I struggled to find a case where that was definitively so.
OK, here are a few.
Wednesday, February 19:
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
Thursday, February 27:
Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
Monday, July 6:
Trump: “We now have the lowest fatality rate in the World.”
(Note that the U.S. has neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate.)
Monday, May 11:
Trump: The United States has conducted more testing “than all other countries together!”
(nope).
It should be noted that in all the poster's statements you're responding to that a bunch of claims were made and referenced that refutes people's criticisms of Trump without actually pointing to anything specific. Read it again - all vague points and partial truths with no citations to back up claims. Don't expect a response or sudden enlightenment.
I think there is something wrong with people whose complaint is that a portion of a discussion, someone sharing their thoughts, experiences and insights somehow isn't valid because it's not in the same format as wikipedia. I feel somewhat sorry for you. I have Aspergers mildly but you must be the Sheldon Cooper of Aspergers.
This isn't wikipedia or a scientific paper. It's a comment and discussion forum. It's casual and you don't have to take everything everyone says as gospel. Everything should be met wi
Without diving too far into details, when people make claims about things I tend to like to know why they think something. I'm one of those people who like to question what I believe because I know that I tend to keep my head down on a lot of stuff going on because.... I just don't have the time to educate myself on everything. However, i do like learning.
Therefore, if someone makes a claim about anything I like to know why they think that or where they get their information. This isn't some weird person
What I've seen you do is basically a really bad habit and it's not just you doing that. What are you really defending, yourself or a habit? You can lose a habit. It's normal to want to ask for some more elaboration on a few key things but disqualification based on that invented criteria is counter productive. Everyone sort of sees the world through a keyhole and I'm saying what I see through mine.
Yet what I base my conclusions on isn't some Gnostic secret insider information. It's generally based on obse
Okay. We need to stop this. You keep referencing some Wikipedia as if I need a line-by-line backing of everything you say. This is not the first time I've said, explicitly, that this is not what I'm asking for. Also, let's both assume that each of us has a busy life where spending our free time researching everyone else's viewpoint isn't practical. My schedule is already 18 hours a day of working, teaching, etc. and I don't need more of a headache. I'll work off the assumption you're a busy individual
That makes sense. Out of frustration of having little time you're sort of wanting me to provide a format where everything has to be served on a silver platter though in the balance of things that's not reasonable. That correlates with the wikipedia format and level of expectations. Especially not good when making it not about that you don't have time but if it doesn't cater to your limitations then it's invalid.
That aside I don't keep a diary of absolutely every video, news article and other thing I migh
So we finally starting talking. Good. The information here is a lot and gives me something to read over and the context gives me something to ponder. This is what I wanted. Please understand, however, that your attitude sucks. If someone asks you a question about why you think something, the thing to not do is berate them. Show them respect and don't insult people's intelligence because their experiences or interests don't match your own. It's one of the many reasons discourse sucks around here. Act
We're guilty of the same and in my case it is being burnt by endless nonsensical arguments. A bit of jabbing is par the course but dirty tricks and complete obstruction are aggressively pursued by various brigades out there and it can be easy for people to slip into it purely on account of the wrong thing being never the less almost effortless and yet effective in that it requires greater effort often to offset it. The citing sources requirement which isn't a requirement is a wikipedia thing though you coul
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
In the week of February 19, when Trump made the statement that the coronavirus would "weaken" in April, there were a total of 53 cases in the United States.
At the end of April, there were 28,000 new cases per day in the United States.
No, the coronavirus didn't "weaken" in April compared to when he made that statement.
No, the coronavirus didn't "weaken" in April compared to when he made that statement.
So it did "weaken in April", but you're allowed to slap on whatever other stuff you want to make the statement false? You sound like a "fact"-checker:
"The weather will warm up in April" - Our rating: mostly false. Sure, the weather did steadily warm throughout April, but since the statement was made in August (and by Trump), well...
But it did "weaken in April". You don't get to swap "it will be weaker in April than it is now" for what he actually said and then claim he was wrong.
When he said. "It will weaken in April," this very clearly means "it will be weaker in April than it is now."
You may say "look, he was technically correct", but no, absolutely not. You are distorting his words.
If I complain about a traffic tie up at 3pm, and you tell me 'don't worry, the traffic will lessen by 5:30', you can't then tell me "well, it's a bad traffic jam at 5:30, but I was technically correct because when I said it would lessen, I only meant it will be better at 5:30 than it was at 5."
When he said. "It will weaken in April," this very clearly means "it will be weaker in April than it is now."
I could not find that exact quote, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but it's clear from the similar ones I've found that he hoped that warmer weather would help. By your own admission, it apparently did.
If I look for the quotation from your original post I find "I think it's going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effe
Wednesday, February 19:
Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
This sounds more like a hopeful statement from early on before we knew how bad it was going to get. Not a scientific prediction based on modelling.
Thursday, February 27:
Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
I read this as: "one day, this whole pandemic will be over and it will seem like a miracle when it is". I'm sure it will be over some day.
I do agree, without looking into them further, that the other two look like he "got the facts wrong".
I believe it is a true assessment that Trump does have a pattern of occasionally slipping into making certain statements when talking about things that are possible but not certain. He also has a tendency to be somewhat approximate in his use of language as well as colloquial. He semi regularly speaks in a kind of shorthand. On occasion he's misinformed, like everyone else he has to rely on others and people get things wrong sometimes.
None of these statements are egregious examples. The question here is
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
- Henry Spencer, University of Toronto Unix hack
More TDS (Score:-1, Troll)
More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More lies from the deranged. Trump was the one who wanted to ban travel from China early on, it was the dems who screamed "Racist! You can't do that!" with Pelosi and crew urging people to go down to Chinatown and shop and mingle in the crowds instead.
And still, to this day, the best scientific evidence suggests that travel bans are mostly useless.
Trump brought up his doctor's recommendation of zinc and HCQ. Immediately the anti-science media, dems, and pharma-shills jump out and start shrieking that it's fake and harmful, with none of them taking a step back to look into it first, or acknowledging that it's a cheap, safe, proven combo that's been used for a long time.
It is absolutely not proven. Every study suggesting that it is effective has been thoroughly debunked. And every study suggesting it is safe has been at such a low dose that it has no statistically significant effect.
Twitter, Facebook, and the media was immediately censoring and attacking anyone who claimed that this came from the Wuhan lab instead of the claimed "wet market". Any evidence put forth was deleted and the author's smeared.
What "evidence"? You mean a bunch of conspiracy theory drivel spewing from people with a long history of spewing conspiracy theory drivel? If there were any evidence that were even *slightly* c
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
This effect is usually subtle. Language is very imperfect and its very easy for the brain to automatically supply the interpretation the pe
Re:More TDS (Score:5, Informative)
I've been through dozens and dozens of case where it's claimed that Trump "got the facts wrong". I was surprised because I struggled to find a case where that was definitively so.
OK, here are a few.
Wednesday, February 19: Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
Thursday, February 27: Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
Monday, July 6: Trump: “We now have the lowest fatality rate in the World.” (Note that the U.S. has neither the lowest mortality rate nor the lowest case-fatality rate.)
Monday, May 11: Trump: The United States has conducted more testing “than all other countries together!” (nope).
You need more?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't wikipedia or a scientific paper. It's a comment and discussion forum. It's casual and you don't have to take everything everyone says as gospel. Everything should be met wi
Re: (Score:2)
Without diving too far into details, when people make claims about things I tend to like to know why they think something. I'm one of those people who like to question what I believe because I know that I tend to keep my head down on a lot of stuff going on because.... I just don't have the time to educate myself on everything. However, i do like learning.
Therefore, if someone makes a claim about anything I like to know why they think that or where they get their information. This isn't some weird person
Re: (Score:2)
Yet what I base my conclusions on isn't some Gnostic secret insider information. It's generally based on obse
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. We need to stop this. You keep referencing some Wikipedia as if I need a line-by-line backing of everything you say. This is not the first time I've said, explicitly, that this is not what I'm asking for. Also, let's both assume that each of us has a busy life where spending our free time researching everyone else's viewpoint isn't practical. My schedule is already 18 hours a day of working, teaching, etc. and I don't need more of a headache. I'll work off the assumption you're a busy individual
Re: (Score:2)
That aside I don't keep a diary of absolutely every video, news article and other thing I migh
Re: (Score:2)
So we finally starting talking. Good. The information here is a lot and gives me something to read over and the context gives me something to ponder. This is what I wanted. Please understand, however, that your attitude sucks. If someone asks you a question about why you think something, the thing to not do is berate them. Show them respect and don't insult people's intelligence because their experiences or interests don't match your own. It's one of the many reasons discourse sucks around here. Act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that ... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
April [Re:More TDS] (Score:2)
So it started dropping off in April, and that's evidence that ... there wasn't a negative effect on the virus then?
In the week of February 19, when Trump made the statement that the coronavirus would "weaken" in April, there were a total of 53 cases in the United States.
At the end of April, there were 28,000 new cases per day in the United States.
No, the coronavirus didn't "weaken" in April compared to when he made that statement.
Re: (Score:2)
So it did "weaken in April", but you're allowed to slap on whatever other stuff you want to make the statement false? You sound like a "fact"-checker:
"The weather will warm up in April" - Our rating: mostly false. Sure, the weather did steadily warm throughout April, but since the statement was made in August (and by Trump), well...
Re: (Score:2)
So it did "weaken in April",
It did not weaker in April compared to when he made the statement, no.
Re: (Score:2)
But it did "weaken in April". You don't get to swap "it will be weaker in April than it is now" for what he actually said and then claim he was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
But it did "weaken in April". You don't get to swap "it will be weaker in April than it is now" for what he actually said and then claim he was wrong.
When he said. "It will weaken in April," this very clearly means "it will be weaker in April than it is now."
You may say "look, he was technically correct", but no, absolutely not. You are distorting his words.
If I complain about a traffic tie up at 3pm, and you tell me 'don't worry, the traffic will lessen by 5:30', you can't then tell me "well, it's a bad traffic jam at 5:30, but I was technically correct because when I said it would lessen, I only meant it will be better at 5:30 than it was at 5."
Re: (Score:2)
I could not find that exact quote, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but it's clear from the similar ones I've found that he hoped that warmer weather would help. By your own admission, it apparently did.
If I look for the quotation from your original post I find "I think it's going to work out fine. I think when we get into April, in the warmer weather, that has a very negative effe
Re: (Score:2)
Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a full verbatim quotation, context for others, a rebuttal with numbered steps, and an explanatory analogy - totally void of content. /s
Well, rage quitting probably is your best move at this point. Best of luck.
Re: (Score:1)
Wednesday, February 19: Trump: The coronavirus will weaken “when we get into April, in the warmer weather—that has a very negative effect on that, and that type of a virus.” (April was a peak)
This sounds more like a hopeful statement from early on before we knew how bad it was going to get. Not a scientific prediction based on modelling.
Thursday, February 27: Trump: The outbreak would be temporary: “It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” (Nope.)
I read this as: "one day, this whole pandemic will be over and it will seem like a miracle when it is". I'm sure it will be over some day.
I do agree, without looking into them further, that the other two look like he "got the facts wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
None of these statements are egregious examples. The question here is